quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

She seemed as well coached as anyone whose IQ is often exceeded by the Florida temperature in December could be.
What else was she going to say?
She's thoroughly impeached in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

She seemed as well coached as anyone whose IQ is often exceeded by the Florida temperature in December could be.
What else was she going to say?
She's thoroughly impeached in my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1

FR~

This whole discussion is getting a bit polarised. lol.

From an outsider's PoV, I see it as this -
GZ, regardless of what he was doing, wasn't being attacked by Martin and had no evidence to assume he had committed a crime (other than being a black man walking in the neighbourhood) so there was no need to chase him.
GZ, being told by the PD that he "didn't need to" persue Martin (which to me, is an indirect intruction not to do so) doesn't give him orders to the contrary - he chose persuit.
No citizen is acting on behalf of the PD unless under direct instructions from them. For GZ to say that he was 'acting on behalf of the police' is pure bunkum and self-gratification.
Police dispatchers have the authority of the relevant police department to give direct orders to the public; in most places, dispatchers are officers, not civillians.
In this case GZ was effectively told not to persue but he did in direct contravention of the dispatchers' indirect orders.
GZ is innocent unless or until proven otherwise in a court of law.

Just my

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Your racism is expected, as is your lack of intellect in any endeavor.

And your absolute, complete, total and utter denial of the facts/truth is expected, as was your playing the race card in every discussion when you can't refute the facts/truth.

Truth has not been in evidence, nor has any fact.

Really? That's very interesting. Means nothing the State/Prosecution has presented thus far has been the truth or fact...meaning they have no case.

that is a different matter. No truth or fact presented here, is the issue. Here we have no dealings in the outcome of the matter. He's guilty, and if he isn't just for being a fuckwad, he should have to walk in black neighborhoods at night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extravagasm

quote:

Owner post 215: You start a fight, anything bad that happens......to yourself...... or the victim, even accidentally....is on you.

This notion, that you keep pushing, Owner, has no foundation in Common law or US law or common sense.

Actually it does, part of the legal basis for self defense is that you were not the aggressor. For instance in Florida
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/

Zimmerman has to argue that either his behavior doesn't rise to the legal standard of being the aggressor or that Martin was so violent that he falls under 2(a).

Wrong. Zimmerman doesn't have to argue anything. He's innocent until proven guilty. It is the State which has to argue and, moreover, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime they charged him with.

Maybe you're not aware of what an affirmative defense is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
he should have to walk in black neighborhoods at night.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extravagasm

quote:

Owner post 215: You start a fight, anything bad that happens......to yourself...... or the victim, even accidentally....is on you.

This notion, that you keep pushing, Owner, has no foundation in Common law or US law or common sense.

Actually it does, part of the legal basis for self defense is that you were not the aggressor. For instance in Florida
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/

Zimmerman has to argue that either his behavior doesn't rise to the legal standard of being the aggressor or that Martin was so violent that he falls under 2(a).

Wrong. Zimmerman doesn't have to argue anything. He's innocent until proven guilty. It is the State which has to argue and, moreover, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime they charged him with.

Maybe you're not aware of what an affirmative defense is.

Quote and/or post a link to a Federal or Florida criminal trial statute which gives an affirmative defense priority over innocent until proven guilty.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Don't buy your characterization of the murder of Martin. That pretty much sacks that load of asswipe and horseshit up, don't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extravagasm

quote:

Owner post 215: You start a fight, anything bad that happens......to yourself...... or the victim, even accidentally....is on you.

This notion, that you keep pushing, Owner, has no foundation in Common law or US law or common sense.

Actually it does, part of the legal basis for self defense is that you were not the aggressor. For instance in Florida
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/

Zimmerman has to argue that either his behavior doesn't rise to the legal standard of being the aggressor or that Martin was so violent that he falls under 2(a).

Wrong. Zimmerman doesn't have to argue anything. He's innocent until proven guilty. It is the State which has to argue and, moreover, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime they charged him with.

Maybe you're not aware of what an affirmative defense is.

quote:

Don't buy your denial of Martin's attempted murder of Zimmerman

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: RacerJim

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Extravagasm

quote:

Owner post 215: You start a fight, anything bad that happens......to yourself...... or the victim, even accidentally....is on you.

This notion, that you keep pushing, Owner, has no foundation in Common law or US law or common sense.

Actually it does, part of the legal basis for self defense is that you were not the aggressor. For instance in Florida
http://lawofselfdefense.com/statute/fl-776-041%E2%80%83use-of-force-by-aggressor-the-justification-described-in-the-preceding-sections-of-this-chapter-is-not-available-to-a-person-who/

Zimmerman has to argue that either his behavior doesn't rise to the legal standard of being the aggressor or that Martin was so violent that he falls under 2(a).

Wrong. Zimmerman doesn't have to argue anything. He's innocent until proven guilty. It is the State which has to argue and, moreover, prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Zimmerman is guilty of the crime they charged him with.

Maybe you're not aware of what an affirmative defense is.

Quote and/or post a link to a Federal or Florida criminal trial statute which gives an affirmative defense priority over innocent until proven guilty.

Do you have no idea what an affirmative defense is?

He's claiming self defense therefore he admits that he killed Martin. The question before the court is whether the homicide was lawful or unlawful. The burden rests on the defense in all affirmative defenses since the defendant has admitted that the event occurred.

quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

quote:

Don't buy your denial of Martin's attempted murder of Zimmerman

I pretty much believe it went down at least something like what Zimmerman says but fighting... even banging a head to the ground in my mind would not be attempted murder...where a gun is certainly deadly force in the best of circumstances. I do not believe the kid intended to kill Zimmerman but I do believe Zimmerman intended to kill him.

I think the law is more on trial than Zimmerman.

Butch

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So now we are going to be left with the 2 (a) scenario, at what point did he try desperately to get away from him? If he did not try before on the ground, or madly while on the ground (and there would be some hella evidence on Martin) I would say that the statute says, he is as fucked as xaviera hollander.